ERIC EJ1099154: Delivering What Students Say They Want On-Line: Towards Academic Participation in the Enfranchisement of e-Learners?

2006·0.07 MB·English

by  ERIC

Delivering What Students say They Want On-Line: Towards
Academic Participation in the Enfranchisement of e-Learners?
Richard Hall
Department of Academic Quality, De Montfort University, UK
[email protected]

Abstract: Sustainable e-Learning holds the promise of enabling higher education to meet the needs of a large and
diverse market. Central to this is the response of academic staff teams in meeting the needs of individual learners, in
order to enfranchise them within an evolving, enabling learning context. Enfranchisement is underpinned by the
management of learner-expectations in the value-added nature of the on-line learning experience. However, learner-
enfranchisement demands that on-line interaction is both accepted by academic teams and educationally liberating.
Liberation requires meaningful existence, and hence active participation, within a 'supercomplex' world, in which both
individual identities and the ability to manage information are tested.

This paper assesses ways in which learner-enfranchisement can be encouraged by academic teams. It pivots around the
outcomes from student evaluations of a strategic e-Learning implementation in one UK higher education institution. The
conclusions that it draws focus upon strategies for adding pedagogic value, increasing academic participation and
developing e-Learning sustainability in order to enfranchise e-learners. The argument highlights ways in which academic
teams can move from a battery-intensive approach to e-Learning towards one that is more free-ranging. It highlights how
academic staff can increase the sustainable, inclusive value of the learning experience at a minimised cost. From this
basis, it is argued that any extant disenfranchisement in the delivery of e-Learning can begin to be addressed by
increased team-work. A by-product for those teams is that in the very process of engaging their students, there is more
hope that they will in-turn become empowered within their own use of e-Learning.

Keywords: Academic participation; Learner-enfranchisement; Teamwork; Sustainability

1. Introduction a risk that disengaged staff may become lost.
Thus, a central thread for building pedagogic
Oliver and Trigwell (2005) argue that the project of
value through sustainable e-Learning
embedding e-Learning within an overarching
developments is connecting academic
learning and teaching ethos should hinge upon
participation to learner-engagement. Greener and
variation theory (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005), where
Perriton (2005: 78) note that
the constructed learning space affords ‘the critical
If meaningful learning communities are to
patterns of variation in topics… that lead to
be built in e-Learning contexts of this type,
learning’ (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005: 23). Crucially
then they will demand of their members
Oliver and Trigwell (2005: 24) argue for ‘exploring
more than functional, teleological
change from the perspective of the learner’, rather
behaviour, and must find ways of
than through the focus on teaching as is the case
harnessing technology to foster greater
with ‘blended learning’.
interactivity. Improvements in technology

mean there is great scope for the
However, the need to explore the learner’s view of
democratisation of learning.
change pivots around the interventionist roles of
academics and the epistemological spaces that Taking variation theory’s learner-centred focus,
they create. In turn, these spaces are being this paper evaluates the theme of academic
shaped by the corporate acceleration of new participation in light of student perceptions of their
technologies and processes that promote engagement with e-Learning. The argument
sustainability. Littlejohn (2004: 91) defines highlights the connections between the
sustainability as ‘the design and development of enfranchisement of e-learners and the
on-line courses that could easily be updated or development of academic teams, with respect to
scaled up’, and the Higher Education Funding one UK University. From this basis, it is argued
Council for England’s ‘Strategy for eLearning’ that the sustainability of e-Learning, driven by the
(HEFCE, 2005: 2) endorses institutional, strategic creation of shared, enabling learning
approaches that are sustainable. environments can begin to be addressed by
enhanced team-work.
The management of innovation is crucial for
academic staff, who need to recognise the
intrinsic value of any change to be embedded
(Lines, 2004; Taylor 1999). However, in the move
towards a sustainable, corporate dynamic, there is
ISSN 1479-4403 25 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Reference this paper as:
Hall R (2006) “Delivering What Students say They Want On-Line: Towards Academic Participation in the
Enfranchisement of e-Learners?” The Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 4 Issue 1, pp 25-32, available online at
www.ejel.org
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 4 Issue 1 2006 (25-32))
2. Learner enfranchisement variation (McKnight, 1977) and the selfless
support for each individual’s management of their
2.1 Notions of enfranchisement own learning on their own terms (Illich, 1971),
through a process of incorporation into a self-
It has been argued that where learners feel
regulating community. However, both learners
enfranchised through their ‘increasing influence…
and tutors have to want enfranchisement.
on learning provision’ (EdExcel, 2004) they are
more likely to engage in specific activities or
2.2 Enfranchising e-Learners: Battery-
scenarios. Freire (1972: 52) argued the same
point when noting that ‘Liberation is a praxis: the farmed or free ranging?
action and reflection of men upon their world in
The UK Government’s Department for Education
order to transform it.’ This theme of
and Skills presented a positivist view that e-
enfranchisement via increased freedom-of-action
Learning will be a socio-economic panacea for
requires engagement with the social context in
individuals and society through the deployment of
which it takes place, and therefore builds a sense
radical new pedagogies (DfES, 2003a; DfES,
of belonging. It stems from empowerment rather
2003b). Zemsky and Massy critiqued this view
than coercion.
and argued (2004: 52) that ‘For the most part,

faculty who make e-Learning a part of their
For Barnett (1997), empowerment is rooted in an
teaching do so by having the electronics simplify
individual’s critical life, where a framework of rules
tasks, not by fundamentally changing how the
or values enables a learner to act reflexively.
subject is taught.’
However, in relation to e-Learning and variation

theory, the generation of a reflexive approach also
The students interviewed by Zemsky and Massey
demands that individuals have personalised
articulated three key components of e-Learning
access to collaborative, epistemological spaces,
that they valued: ‘They want to be connected,
where they feel able to discern and manage
principally to one another. They want to be
difference (Oliver and Trigwell, 2005). This is
entertained, principally by games, music, and
crucial for Bowden and Marton (2003: 129) who
movies. And they want to present themselves and
state that 'students need to experience variation
their work’ (2004: 51). In light of this, the authors
precisely because you cannot predict in advance
highlight successful e-Learning experiences that
what they will have to deal with as professionals'.
reflect these everyday, real-world practices.

These include problem-based group-work within a
Central to the management of variation is
‘physically intact learning community’ (2004: 51),
freedom-of-action within a context where all actors
with the close involvement of the tutor acting as a
are incorporated with agreed rights and
facilitator. Hence, presenting, developing and
responsibilities. This connects into Sachs’ view of
evaluating a scenario, activity or product that
engagement within a civil society (2000: 137).
reflects the students’ assumptions and
A strong civil society protects liberty expectations is crucial.
because it diffuses the centres of power. It
creates fraternity because it encourages Ip (2004a) agrees and argued that ‘the real
people to work together as neighbours and promise of e-Learning is not [as] an on-line
friends. It promotes equality because it textbook, but a simulator… My approach would be
tempers self-help with help to others, and to build engaging scenarios at critical moments in
because the help given to others is such as a role play simulation.’ This builds on the view (Ip,
to encourage their participation and 2004b) that students require a ‘free-ranging’
eventually independence. approach to information-gathering, scenario-
For learners, the mode of incorporation into these building and evaluation, within a structured and
socials spaces enables them to make sense of safe environment, rather than one that is battery-
the world and therefore become independent. intensive. In the latter learners are housed within
a minimally-engaging context, where structure,
This ties into Barnett’s discussion of tasks and information are wholly defined and
'supercomplexity' within university life (Barnett, made accessible by the teaching team. This
2000), where multiple critical frameworks for the dependency culture requires minimal learner-input
analysis of information and discourse are in into the learning environment.
competition. The ability to forge innovative and
secure approaches to the critique of both As in a battery-intensive environment, one that is
knowledge and the frameworks that help us to free-ranging has clearly-defined parameters in
interpret it, is crucial for the development of terms of what it is, why the students are in it, and
learning. Thus, managing 'supercomplexity' and how they should use both it and their outputs from
promoting enfranchisement requires contextual it. The difference lies in the level of active
www.ejel.org 26 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Richard Hall
participation and involvement by both the learners especially where individuals feel a lack of control
and tutors in shaping the boundaries of the (Bordia et al., 2004; Kinman and Jones, 2003).
environment and the available tasks and One way of mitigating these effects is through
information. This is important for Ip (2004c): clearly defined and inclusive team-work (Hertel et
‘When all the learners (or trainees) are al., 2004). Ingram and Desombre have defined
exchanging meaningful stories related to the teamwork as ‘organised co-operation’, pivoting
theme of the training, I would say we have a [sic.] around the cohesive achievement of a common
rich e-Learning experiences’. A free-ranging goal (1999: 18). This accords with the outcomes
learner has more autonomy in acquiring, utilising of the UK Health Care Team Effectiveness Project
and publishing learning materials. Moreover, the (Department of Health, 2002), which also noted
learner has a negotiated freedom-of-action over that the ‘Quality of team working (having clear
her/his approach to task-work, and, freed from an objectives, high levels of participation,
inflexible coinfinement, will tend to feel commitment to quality, support for innovation and
enfranchised. reflexivity) is positively related to team
effectiveness.’
This ‘free-ranging’ model has three implications
for curriculum management. The first is that Ingram and Desombre’s paper is important for
students still cannot escape or change the academics because the authors focus upon the
environmental boundaries directly. They can only nature of teams in complex industries. Far from
alter it through the actions of their tutors, and only being the province of the lone academic, the
where the students’ educational health is shaping and delivering of the curriculum is now
perceived to be adversely affected by the extant likely to be a shared experience, with a unit leader
learning context. The second implication is that co-ordinating a team that may involve both full
where a new type of environment holds the and part-time staff from multiple departments
promise of increased productivity or achievement (Ramsden 1998), with multiple modes of delivery.
it may be deemed appropriate to migrate delivery The 25 modules involved in the evaluation below
towards it. The final implication is that students had 103 academic staff involved in their delivery.
who are experiencing one approach to learning on In one vocational, distance learning module that
a specific unit, may favour or fear different relied on mentoring, four academic staff and 133
approaches on other units. It is equally possible external mentors had access to the on-line
for students to be happy and productive in free- module.
ranging and battery-intensive arenas. Where the
overall student experience involves a mixed Moreover, the make-up of these teams tends to
economy in the delivery of e-Learning, academic shift over time, in terms of both personnel and
teams need to explain the overall value. their confidence with e-Learning. At the start of
the implementation noted below, only 27 of the
This is important in light of the view that e- 103 academic staff had previously engaged in e-
Learning, being the ability to ‘make it possible for Learning. Therefore the learning curve for these
anyone to learn who wishes to learn, at a time and staff was steep and this has complex
place of their choosing’ (Bourne et al., 2004: 2), management implications, not only because team
can be procedural rather than radical and still approaches have to relate to educational design
have worth. The ability of learners to access and delivery that is fit-for-purpose (Lomas, 2002,
courses at cost and with an assured level of pp. 72 - 4), but also as teams are responsible to
quality can promote enfranchisement. the wider organisation for meetings its goals
Pedagogically radical or not, ‘the demand for on- (West et al., 2004).
line learning continues to grow - and not just for
convenience but because it works and because In building sustainable academic participation in
working adults find it necessary’ (Bourne et al., e-Learning, staff teams need to focus upon
2004: 3). Where this necessity is not addressed, organised co-operation, in order:
possibilities for disenfranchisement are multiplied. 1. To understand how to use institutional e-
Thus, empowerment demands the development of Learning systems;
an enabling social context, where students feel 2. To see models of good practice for engaging
connected to their curriculum and understand why with those systems in the curriculum; and
they are engaged in specific activities.
3. To recognise what students value from e-
Learning, and thereby review their collective
2.3 Enfranchising e-Learners: The role of
approach.
team-work
Through co-operative review, academic teams
Innovation and change tend to increase the can build complexity into their use of e-Learning.
overall levels of psychological, work-based stress,
www.ejel.org 27 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 4 Issue 1 2006 (25-32))
3. Evaluation involved was low, with one academic in each
demonstrating best practice with no team-based
implementation plan.
3.1 A note on context

The discussion below focuses upon the impact on Overall the questionnaire outcomes showed a
the learning experience of deploying an integrated highly significant association between the
e-Learning system within one UK university, which students’ achievement of the unit learning
supports approximately 20,000 students on its outcomes, and their access to each of:
programmes, distributed across two centres and (cid:131) Module information (x2 (2) = .001, p<.01);
six faculties. Ahead of the 2003-04 academic (cid:131) Learning materials (x2 (2) = .001, p<.01);
session it moved towards a sustainable and
(cid:131) Assessments (x2 (2) = .001, p<.01); and
interoperable e-Learning structure, which by the
close of the 2004–05 sessions supported 905 (cid:131) Opportunities for personal interaction (x2 (3) =
academics and 13,254 students on 927 on-line .001, p<.01).
modules. The complexity of the integration means The associations suggest that the provision of
that the overarching risk from staff and/or student these types of materials and experiences, some of
non-engagement is increased. which were procedural, underpinned the students’
achievement of the module learning outcomes, at
The evaluation is based upon: all levels-of-study and all ages.
1. Snapshots of the implementation by means of
evaluation questionnaires delivered to 968 There was also a highly significant association
students by 25 module teams at Levels 1 (n = between the achievement of the learning
420), 2 (n = 153), 3 (n = 226), and post- outcomes and whether the system was felt to be
graduate (n = 169); and dependable (x2 (1) = .001, p<.01) or easy-to-use
2. Analyses of interviews and focus groups with (x2 (1) = .001, p<.01). For instance, 501 of the 713
61 students and 48 academic and support students who claimed that e-Learning was helping
staff. them to achieve their learning outcomes also felt
that the system was dependable. A postgraduate
It was driven by the impact of the systematic
student felt that ‘Access has been great. I am hard
implementation of e-Learning upon learning and
of hearing – this is great to be able to
teaching, rather than by specific theories. It
communicate without worry of them hearing me. I
utilises Zuber-Skerritt’s CRASP model (1992, pp.
hadn’t foreseen this.’ However, 125 (62.8 per
14 - 17), which aims for the critical, reflective,
cent) of the 199 students who claimed that the
accountable, self-evaluative and participative
system was not helping them to achieve their
improvement of practice, in order to provide staff
learning outcomes also felt that it was not
teams with some pragmatic enhancement
dependable. This was particularly the case for
opportunities.
those learners who were older than 30, for whom

there was a significant association between
Unless otherwise stated, the percentages given in
dependability and the achievement of the learning
the sections, which follow, are for respondents to
outcomes (x2 (3) = .29, p<.05).
specific questions. Due to the nature of the

nominal data in the questionnaires, chi-squared
It can be inferred that those student’s whose on-
tests were carried out in order to analyse
line experience was comfortable with few
associations between factors. A p-value of .05
problems felt that it added value to their learning.
was selected in order to minimise the risk of Type
This highlights the need for staff to negotiate and
1 errors whilst reducing the likelihood of Type 2
then articulate clear, agreed structures for student
errors.
support, especially in terms of part-time and
mature students, and those working at a distance.
3.2 The impact of e-Learning on the
For instance, one student argued that ‘the tutor
student learning experience
was unclear about the set-up – he was learning
In all, 728 students (78.0 per cent) felt that e- and it was a new course for him with a new e-
Learning was helping them to achieve their Learning system’. A second stated that ‘it was a
module learning outcomes. The number of worry when the system went down close to a
students who felt that this was not the case was deadline – I did not know who to call. I would like
especially high amongst post-graduates, where it clearer technical advice as my tutor doesn’t really
was 40.4 per cent (n = 74). Here tutors were using understand.’ A lack of academic engagement with
the system simply, to provide additional resources issues and opportunities that arise frustrates and
like handbooks and lecture notes, with minimal ultimately disconnects learners.
interaction, little signposting and no co-ordinated
deployment. Moreover, the IT literacy of the teams
www.ejel.org 28 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Richard Hall
3.3 Managing expectations: Towards per cent (n = 756) felt that they would like e-
cohesive rules of engagement Learning to be used to support their other
modules. A further 14 mentioned this issue in their
One six-strong teaching team, who focused their
interviews, with one Level 2 student stating: ‘In
provision on distance learners, noted their
order to spend time [on-line], it would be beneficial
overarching vision for on-line engagement.
for all modules to use it. It is, in my opinion, [an
As we cannot see them reading and using issue for me] to spend time using it for only one
materials, we have to try to engage in the module and still have to manually research and
process of the conversation, to move the interact with all other modules’. This view was
students forward. We try hard not to reinforced by a focus group of Level 1 and 2 tutors
interrupt the flow of their conversations – who noted that the variation in use of the system
they need to know that we are there and within programme teams was a disadvantage to
listening but those we will not interfere. embedding it within learning and teaching.
This team had run on-line distance learning for However, it can be argued that rather than
three years and believed that clarity was crucial variation in use, it is consistent communication
because student expectations vary. Elsewhere, a about that variation which matters. A more
level one student reported that ‘I had never used interactive, free-ranging approach requires
e-Learning before and so I used it as it comes. I organised co-operation.
had no expectations, but these are now rising,
especially in use for research on this course and 3.4 The value of currency and
using the Internet.’ This heightened expectation interactivity
was reiterated by a level three learner who argued
Interaction is fundamental in enhancing the role of
that ‘it needs more integration into other modules.
e-Learning in the curriculum, and 25 student
All tutors should encourage more use’.
interviewees specifically talked about its impact on

their learning experience. Overall the student
Twenty-seven student interviewees saw a need
questionnaires revealed a highly significant
for the explicit clarification of the teaching team’s
association between having both enough
expectations for them and their work, whilst 28
interaction and enough learner support and
highlighted their own expectations of the tutor and
feedback ((x2 (3) = .001, p<. 01). However, for
the system. One student working at a distance
Level 3 students (x2 (2) = .620, p>.05), and
noted that ‘Tutors all use it in different ways and
students over 30 (x2 (1) = .984, p>.05) the data
some not at all, and therefore there is not much
infer that these students had not found interaction
support.’ This was more important for 23 of the 61
very useful and felt that they had not had enough
student interviewees who stressed the need for
learner support and feedback. Of these groups,
more feedback on their work. One stated that ‘I
43.4 per cent (n = 72) felt that interaction on their
anticipate more guidance and contact – especially
module was not very useful for them and 47.3 per
feedback’. The key here is building a consistent
cent (n = 78) felt that there was not enough tutor
on-line student learning experience.
feedback. The stage that these learners were at in

their learning cycle would suggest that they
In generating consistency, socialisation and the
expected less battery-intensive, i.e. information-
creation of shared operational norms are crucial
heavy, discussion-light, on-line experiences.
and need to be planned. One student felt that this
Students at different levels of study may need
element was poorly handled: ‘I was left confused
differential e-Learning contexts in order to feel
from induction – there was too much and too
enfranchised.
many people were involved.’ A second felt that

there was ‘poor training and a lot of assumptions
The connection between the achievement of the
were made about people’s learning’. Clarity of
learning outcomes and the level of learning
introduction and on-going, cohesive support are
support and feedback also shows a highly
central themes that connect into time-
significant association for students at Levels 1, 2
management. A dyslexic student indicated that
and 3 (x2 (1) = .001, p<.01), and those students
time was a huge issue for students with specific,
under 30 (x2 (1) = .001, p<.01). From the data,
diagnosed impairments who may need extra
students who felt that e-Learning was helping
support, or more careful planning of the delivery of
them to achieve their learning outcomes also felt
on-line task-work or assessments. As the stress of
that they were receiving enough learner support
managing multiple new environments can affect
and feedback. However, analysis showed that this
individual engagement, students rely on the ways
was not the case for postgraduate students (x2 (1)
in which staff teams are supportive of them.
= .599, p>.05), or those students who were older

than 30 (x2 (1) = .205, p>.05). In all, 40.0 per cent
A final expectation is the demand for more on-line
contact. Of the 894 students who responded, 84.6
www.ejel.org 29 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 4 Issue 1 2006 (25-32))
(n = 379) of the students surveyed felt that there Here negotiation between learners and teaching
was not enough interaction and learning support. team changed the environmental boundaries of
the learning context, and this local innovation was
In part, short-term demand for interaction can be connected to the overall confidence and openness
achieved by maintaining the currency of the on- of the team. As learner expectations rise, the
line experience. Of the student questionnaire demand for, and foci of, professional development
respondents, 15.8 per cent (n = 222) valued the needs to be assessed in-line with a team’s overall
fact that announcements and the regular, vision, experience and improvement agenda, and
structured upload of content during the module the need to retain and recruit more learners. One
kept them up-to-date with developments. The staff interviewee noted that:
interview analysis highlighted the value of
[The e-Learning system] allows us to focus
appropriately timed, clearly identifiable materials
upon the links between modules in a
(n = 28), feedback (n = 25), and consistency of
programme. We can begin to make
types of resources between and within modules (n
connections and give an overview of all of
= 12). Despite this, academic teams need to
the modules… we can then show the links
engage with the process of development from
between learning outcomes and
short-term innovation into long-term demand-
assessment, and students can be made
management, if their students are to be
aware of the other avenues that are open to
enfranchised.
them conceptually.
Again the focus is on environmental change in
3.5 Towards academic engagement?
order to increase student achievement, and the
In all, 23 staff that were interviewed focused upon team recognised that a cohesive, planned
the pioneering role of others, who are able to approach would reap benefits.
share good practice with the later settlers. This is
crucial because so many were relatively naïve 4. Conclusions
settlers. One member of staff ‘selected one
These descriptive analyses indicate that even
module [for on-line use] and decided not to
procedural, battery-intensive e-Learning
overcomplicate things… [Because] my awareness
engagements can have a positive impact on the
was a bit of a barrier’, and highlighted that ‘I also
learning experience where they are managed
pinched other people’s ideas – I had a browse
through organised co-operation. Developing this
around and saw what they were up to. This
approach is more pressing for academic staff
allowed me to see how what I do fits in with
because when students were asked to nominate
other’s work – I could fill-in some gaps.’ Pioneers
two factors that they disliked about the overall
have the potential to empower others.
system, 401 (44.6 per cent) of the returns singled

out learning and teaching elements. This
One senior manager who articulated that
illustrates the expectations of students for clarity
‘threshold expectations are being demanded by
of delivery across all levels of study. Amongst
students and need to be met by academic teams’
those students with greater experience of higher
focused upon this pioneering-settling model. His
education there was an expectation that there
faculty’s end-of-year report picked up this issue in
would be more analytical and interactive work and
its recommendation for enhanced ‘pedagogic
less emphasis on battery-intensive e-Learning.
development as programme teams discuss the
Whilst some staff sees system reliability as a
potential of the system.’ This was pivotal for
barrier to student usage, students see the
another academic who argued that ‘unless all staff
improvements in their learning environment as
in a team use it evenly then there is little point.
more enfranchising.
There is some overlap across modules and it is

useful for all staff to use [the system].’ Again,
The students identified two; quick wins for
empowerment is seen to stem from inclusive
academic teams that are not only low cost in
teamwork.
terms of time and resource overheads but also

likely to increase participation. The first is the use
One member of staff in a different faculty noted
of available communication tools to maintain
that:
currency and join-up various curriculum elements.
The team’s modules are all on [the e-
Crucially, this factor would sharpen the students’
Learning system] – student pressure has
sense of on-line engagement and
increased this and this has put pressure on
enfranchisement, and demonstrate a shared
our workloads and staff IT ability. At the
vision for use across a team. The second is for
moment this is okay across the team as
academic teams to plan and structure the e-
there is informal support and our IT skills
Learning experience both in terms of what is
are okay.
presented on-line and by whom, and how that
www.ejel.org 30 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Richard Hall
maps onto other curriculum delivery mechanisms. (cid:131) a use of specific systems to reflect and
This is crucial because students highlighted the enhance the learning and teaching
disparity of experience where there was architecture.
differential staff use. As staffs align their delivery Where curriculum objectives are agreed and
of e-Learning activities with the time, locations development is then centred on the sustainable
and ways in which they interact with their learners, integration of e-Learning by the team, academic
they are better able to pragmatically deliver what participation will address the three implications for
students say they want on-line. curriculum management that arise from Ip’s model

of free-ranging (2004b): namely enabling students
This matters because where team approaches are
to change the boundaries of their learning
articulated, students commented on:
environment; enhancing student achievement;
(cid:131) a more integrated and sophisticated use of e-
and ensuring cohesion across a programme. A
learning;
by-product for academic teams is that in the very
(cid:131) more feedback on progress; process of engaging their students, there is more
(cid:131) more task-based, student-controlled content; hope that they will in-turn become enfranchised
and within their own use of e-Learning.
References
Barnett, R. (1997) Higher Education: A Critical Business, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and
the Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (2000) ‘University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity’, Higher Education, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 409-22.
Bordia, P, Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D. and DiFonzo, N. (2004) ‘Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all
about control?’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 1, 345–65.
Bourne, J., Mayadas, F. and Moore, J. (2004) Review: thwarted innovation: what happened to elearning and why, [on-
line], Available: http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/reviews/pdf/review18.pdf [2 August 2005].
Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (2003) The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and Competence in H.E., 2nd edition,
London: Routledge.
Department of Health (2002) Health Care Team Effectiveness Project, research findings, [on-line], Available:
http://www.refer.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.asp?ID=847 [2 August 2005].
DfES (2003a) The Future of Higher Education, White Paper, [on-line], Available:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/White%20Pape.pdf [2 August 2005].
DfES (2003b) Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy: consultation document, [on-line], Available:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/cybrarianproject/uploads/e-Learning%20Strategy%20word.doc [2 August 2005].
EDEXCEL (2004) Response to the DfES Consultation Interim Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform, [on-line],
Available: http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/59384/Tomlison_Interim_Report_Response_FINAL.pdf [2 August
2005].
Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the oppressed, London: Harmondsworth.
Greener, I. and Perriton, L. (2005) ‘The political economy of networked learning communities in higher education’,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 67–79.
HEFCE (2005) Strategy for elearning, [on-line], Available:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_12/05_12.doc [2 August 2005].
Hertel, G., Konradt, U. and Orlikowski, B. (2004) ‘Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task
interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams’, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 1–28.
Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling society, London: Calder and Boyars.
Ingram, H. and Desombre, T. (1999) ‘Team-work: comparing academic and practitioners’ perceptions’, Team
Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 16-22.
Ip, A. (2004a) Simulation and E-Learning, [on-line], Available:
http://elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2004/09/simulation-and-e-Learning.html [2 August 2005].
Ip, A. (2004b) E-Learning models, [on-line], Available:
http://elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2004/09/e-Learning-models.html [2 August 2005].
Ip, A. (2004c) It’s all about rich e-Learning experiences, [on-line], Available:
http://:elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2004/12/its-all-about-rich-e-Learning.html [2 August 2005].
Kinman, G. and Jones, F. (2003) ‘”Running up the Down Escalator”: stressors and strains in UK academics’, Quality in
Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 21–38.
Littlejohn, A. (2004) ‘Supporting sustainable e-Learning’, Association for Learning Technology Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
88–102.
Lines, R. (2004) ‘Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment and change goal
achievement’, The Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4, No.3, pp. 193–215.
Lomas, L. (2002) ‘Does the Development of Mass Education Necessarily Mean the End of Quality?’, Quality in Higher
Education, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 71–80.
McKnight, J. M. (1977) ‘Professionalized service and disabling help’, in Illich, I., Zola, K., McKnight, J., Caplan, J. and
Shaiken, H. (eds) Disabling professions, London: Marion Boyars, pp. 69-91.
www.ejel.org 31 ISSN 1479-4403
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume 4 Issue 1 2006 (25-32))
Oliver, M. and Trigwell, K. (2005) ‘Can “Blended Learning” be Redeemed?’, E-Learning, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 17–26.
Ramsden, P. (1998) Learning to lead in higher education, London: Routledge.
Sacks, J. (2000) The Politics of Hope, London: Vintage.
Taylor, P. (1999) Making sense of academic life: Academics, Universities and Change, Buckingham: Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A. and Shipton, H (2004) ‘Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change
through developing innovative teams’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.
269–99.
Zemsky, R. and Massy, W.F. (2004) Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-Learning and Why, [on-line], Available:
http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf [2 August 2005].
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1992) Action Research in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.

www.ejel.org 32 ©Academic Conferences Ltd